1956G35 OR 1965C182 GEORGE! ! !

1956G35 OR 1965C182 GEORGE! ! !

<HTML>HI GEORGE

YEA IT'S ME AGAIN. I'M KINDA TORN BETWEEN THESE TWO AIRPLANESIN YOUR OPINION WHICH ONE WOULD PICK AND WHY .CAN YOU GIVE ME PROS AND CONS FOR BOTH,OR DO YOU THINK I SHOULD JUST OVERHAULMY 1965 C172.THE G35 HAS 5300TT & 150SMOH.THE C182 HAS 4300TT AND 480 SMOH.I DONT MEAN TO BE A PEST .

My personal experience having flown both types: The above Bonanza speeds are pure BALONEY! That airplane only does 145 kts. Period. I've flown 'em for years and THAT's what they do! The burn about 12 gals/hour to do it. The E-series Continental engine is obsolete and parts are getting VERY hard to find. I wouldn't want to have to rely on an E-engine these days. TCM no longer supports this engine. The airplane's parts are usually available, but they cost the same as a new 2001 Bonanza,...outrageou$. The insurance for the retractible is higher than the fixed gear 182. (A friend with 3,000 hours and 400 in type has to pay $1800/year for $500 deductibles on a $54K hull value.) The Cessna speeds above are slightly low. My personal experience in this airplane show it to give 144 kts at 11.5 to 12 gals/hour. The O-470 series engine is still supported by TCM and factory overhauls and "remans" are easily obtained at competitive prices. The airplane's parts are readily available, including interior parts. The prices are not cheap compared to car parts, but they are compared to Bonanza parts. (Another friends insurance on his '66 model 182 is $1050/year with zero deductible on the ground/$500 deductible in flight. His insurance company will insure the fixed gear 182 on grass runways, but not a retract. Bonanza.)

The Cessna carries 200 pounds more useful load, longer distances, and off of shorter runways, for less money, than the Bonanza will. The Cessna has a simple OFF/LEFT/BOTH/RIGHT gravity-fed fuel system, just like your 172. The Bonanza has a curiously complicated system with boost-pumps (and if injector-equipped, a built-in fuel mis-management possibility consisting of only 60 gallons IF you have the OPTIONAL fuel, spread out among 4 tanks. You MUST use fuel from the left main first, and time the episode, to determine how much air-space is available in it, ...or if you use fuel from another tank you can vent much of your fuel overboard when it tries to return the fuel to the left main and it overflows. The pilot has no warning of this and then may end up surprised to run out of fuel prematurely.) The Cessna has 65 gallons of fuel standard,...the Bonanza only 39. The Bonanza has 60 gallons optional, the Cessna can have up to 84!

More mechanics are more familiar with Cessnas than Bonanzas, especially as applies to such things as landing gear rigging and flap systems. (The Bonanza landing gear has a dynamic brake, that if mal-adjusted can damage the transmission.) The Bonanza has a re-occuring A.D. on the wing-spar carry-through structure. The Cessna has no such defect. The Bonanza has an on-going structural integrity problem with the V-tail (despite what the American Bonanza Society says. Even Beechcraft wants this airplane grounded. After all, they quit making it for a reason.), and it's under renewed scrutiny for still more A.D. notes. The Bonanza's "elevons" are made of magnesium, and highly susceptible to corrosion. Not so the Cessna.

The high-wing Cessna is cooler in the summer due to the shade provided by the high wing. It's cabin heater and cabin ventilation system is much more effective than the Bonanza. It makes a much better aerial sightseeing and photo platform with it's better down-ward visibility, and it's much more stabil in turbulence due to it's CG being placed below the wing. The cabin doors on Cessnas never leak water into the cabin like Bonanzas do. (Wait about two days after a rainstorm and open a Bonanza up to smell the mildew. Look below the cabin door of a Bonanza, beneath the carpet, and observe the rotted WOODEN floor-panels and corroded aluminum structure.) Additionally, the Cessna is less prone to "tail-wag" due to it's standard tail and it's greater length (which results in greater rudder authority and longitudinal stability.) The Cessna is easier to enter and exit, and load/unload than the Bonanza. (Ask any woman in a skirt and heels how easy it is to step onto a Bonanza wing and down into the cockpit. Ask again how easy it is to exit, especially from the co-pilot's seat. It's hard for a man even, without completely turning around in the seat and kneeling in the seat. Then you have to hike a leg and put a foot either in the seat or outside the cabin to raise up out of the airplane. Try it! Imagine doing this in a skirt! Not to mention trying to raise a leg high enough to step onto the step or wing, without ripping a skirt at the hem. And a high-heel punched through the wing-skin, as it's inevitably going to occur, is expensive to repair. The flaps are one of the problem maintenance areas on Bonanzas as the result of heavy foot traffic and playful kids leaping onto and off of them. A close friend, Reagan Marshall's biggest problem is getting his wife to fly with him since he bought the Bonanza. She wants their Cessna back!)The Bonanza also has a C.G. problem. It's very easily loaded outside of it's rear envelope and, get this!, it can take off inside it's envelope, but when it comes time to land, ...due to it's rearward movement of C.G. as it burns fuel, ...the airplane can be completely outside it's C.G. when it comes time to land. Lots of Bonanzas have spent time sitting on their tail tie-down rings! In fact, it's very easy with a lightly fueled Bonanza, to have rear seat passengers loaded, (and due to the single cabin door) the pilot onboard in his seat, and when the last passenger steps onto the step, ....the airplane can actually fall on to it's tail on the ramp! I've witnessed this many times. (That's another thing, the pilot has to enter the airplane before all his passengers are loaded,...an awkward arrangement when inexperienced pax are trying to enter for the first time. Also, the pilot must reach across the pax to close the door, and the Bonanza door is sometimes troublesome to close. It's almost impossible to get a mal-adjusted Bonanza door closed with a pax in the co-pilot seat because that person blocks the door-pull preventing the pilot from gaining leverage. If the person is even slightly overweight, it becomes an embarrasing episode. Sometimes the door won't close at all as the pax anatomy interferes with the interior door trim. (And due to the rearward CG problem of Bonanzas, it's IMPERATIVE that heaviest pax sit up front.)The Cessna is easier to sell, and sells more quickly, because of it's higher market demand and greater qualified pilot-population. (Fewer pilots are insurable in retracts.)

Notice that the Bonanza can only compete with the Cessna in price because it's 10-years older. This is not an equitable comparison at all. While giving my opinion, let me close by saying that although the Bonanza carries a certain "sex-appeal" with some observers due to it's namesake and it's snob-appeal (due partly to it's quirky tail and retractible gear), I believe the Cessna 182 is not only a superior airplane for the money, but also a superior airframe from a strength, serviceability, comfort, convenience, utility, and resale value.

Plus, the Cessna Owners organization get together and talk about flying and airplanes. Bonanza owners get together (sometimes) and talk about patients, clients, engine overhauls in designer-colors, and golf! (grin)

Of course, being a former Beechcraft owner (and Bonanza Society member), I've never really formed much in the way of an opinion about this subject. ;Þ</HTML>

Re: 1956G35 OR 1965C182 GEORGE! ! !

<HTML>George makes powerful arguments for the 182, and validates opinions I have long held about the V-tail Bonanza with great eloquence and objectivity.

I'm wondering, though, if the last option you mentioned - namely overhauling your '65 172 - might not be a viable option. If your 172 airframe is in good shape and you still have the Continental O-300 in your airplane, you could improve its rate of climb and cruise performance by doing a Penn-Yan or AirPlains 180 HP Lycoming conversion, and your fuel consumption would still be significantly lower than the it would be if you bought the 182 (9.5-10 gph instead of 12 gph). I am seriously thinking about doing the AirPlains conversion on my 172D when overhaul time on my O-300 comes around.

George, do you know of anyone who has converted an O-300 powered 172 to Lycoming power, and if so, are they happy with it?

Re: 1956G35 OR 1965C182 GEORGE! ! !

<HTML>Hi, Stan! I don't have any personal experience with such conversions on 172's, but a similar conversion exists for 170's (virtually the same airplane, except for about 30 seconds of additonal excitement during takeoffs and landings. ;Þ ) The six-cylinder Continentals are such smooth-running engines that it may not occur to one that a more powerful engine, dividing it's power-strokes into only four cylinders, could cause a noticeable vibration which may lead to airframe fretting and cracking. That has been the experience of many 170 owners. They love the additional horsepower, but the additional vibration wasn't something they'd bargained for. Also, keep in mind that additional horsepower will add to top cruising speeds only slightly. Excess horsepower primarily improves takeoff and climb performance, but only marginally increases cruise speeds. (Remember ground school? Drag increases as the SQUARE of velocity. 75% power from a 145 hp engine is about 108 hp, while 75% of 180 hp is 135, an increase of 27 hp. A rough rule of thumb I've seen advertised is to divide the hp difference by 4, and that will result in the expected True Airspeed gain of any addition of hp. In the above example, that would be an increase of less than 7 kts gain at 75% power, for a conversion cost of between $18K-$30K, depending upon which package was selected.) Adding the cost of such a conversion to the value of the re-sale value of a 172, should provide a nifty-sized purse with which to buy a 182. Considering all the other factors that make a 182 a more robust airframe than a 172, i.e., wider cabin, greater useful load, greater range, increased corrosion protection, better soundproofing, etc, the upgrade to a 182 may make more sense than making large modifications to a 172. When it comes to re-sale value, stock airplanes almost always perform better than highly modified airplanes. Not only is there a larger market for them, but keep in mind that newly-modified airplanes suffer a similar depreciation problem as new airplanes just off the showroom floor. The person who first owns them, suffers the greatest depreciation. The persons who I've felt had the greatest success with these sort of conversions, were those who flew their airplanes considerably more, and usually in tougher than average environments, than the average airplane owner, and who'd already made considerable investments in personalizing their aircraft with such things as specialized avionics, paint, interior, and other airframe mods. (The examples that come to mind are mostly air-freight, charter, and air-ambulance operators in demanding environments such as Alaska and the third world.)My own choice would be, ...if happy with the 172 and it's intended mission,...I'd select a highly reputable shop for an overhaul or exchange engine. If I felt that I needed more performance,...I'd lean toward buying an airplane with higher performance already designed into it. Just a personal preference.</HTML>

Re: 1956G35 OR 1965C182 GEORGE! ! !

<HTML>Thanks, George. You make some good points (again!).. You're right about the smoothness of the six cylinder Continental compared to the Lycoming four. The difference is quite noticeable when flying an older Continental powered 172, and then getting into a later, Lycoming powered one. Also, I hadn't thought about the effect the added vibration might have on the airframe.</HTML>